The Holy Grail of Remote Controls

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/08/31/universal.remote.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/08/31/universal.remote.ap/index.html</a><br /><br />If you think customizing your PC can be difficult, you should try getting a so-called "Universal Remote" to work. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif" /> They each have their own user interface, most of which are not graphical. You have to figure out what keys do what and it is not always intuitive. The only thing worse may be trying to get MapQuest directions via WAP, but that is another rant.<br /><br />Those in the industry seem to agree. ' "We have managed to take the worst of the PC industry and transplant it into home electronics," said Michael Gartenberg, research director at Jupiter Research, a New York-based new media consulting firm. "There is a reason they call it programming a remote control. Consumers give up." '<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2002/20020903-remotecontrol.jpg" /><br /><br />Well, a new generation of appliances may be the solution. They have built in web servers to communicate with handhelds and can communicate with software on the Pocket PC, removing the burden from the user. Can you imagine? An age where you go to your grandfather's house and the clock on his VCR isn't blinking! <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif" /> Thanks to Brian Cooksey for the link.

[Pony99CA]

If you think customizing your PC can be difficult, you should try getting a so-called "Universal Remote" to work. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif They each have their own user interface, most of which are not graphical. You have to figure out what keys do what and it is not always intuitive.

Those in the industry seem to agree. ' "We have managed to take the worst of the PC industry and transplant it into home electronics," said Michael Gartenberg, research director at Jupiter Research, a New York-based new media consulting firm. "There is a reason they call it programming a remote control. Consumers give up." '

Well, a new generation of appliances may be the solution. They have built in web servers to communicate with handhelds and can communicate with software on the Pocket PC, removing the burden from the user. Can you imagine? An age where you go to your grandfather's house and the clock on his VCR isn't blinking! http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

The article lists two main issues with this technology: cost and timing.

About cost, they claim wireless chips cost from $10 to $40, which could discourage manufacturers from including this technology. I thought I read that TI had Bluetooth chips down to $5, but that only includes part of the hardware required and none of the software. You'd still need hardware to store the device's Web site and software to make it friendly.

Another cost issue was whether people would want to spend the money to get the PDA necessary to run their devices. I can't see every manufacturer including a PDA with a VCR, for example, but, if they don't, they'd still have to include the old generation IR or RF remote controls for people who didn't want to buy a PDA.

Regarding timing, they claim this type of thing could take a decade to get to us. :-( This has to do with industry cooperation and getting the costs down.

One thing they forgot to mention was security. If you think some hacker messing with your computer over your always-on broadband connection is bad, imagine some war driver turning all of your appliances on (including the oven, microwave and iron) while you're on vacation. They could burn down your house. At the very least, you'd have a huge electric bill.

Steve

[T-Will]

Regarding security, how secure is the MAC address filtering on most new wireless router/access points?

[Pony99CA]

Regarding security, how secure is the MAC address filtering on most new wireless router/access points?
I'm no networking expert, but my understanding is that MAC address filtering is much more secure, but MACs still can be spoofed.

How one finds out which MAC to spoof, though, I don't know. Maybe they sniff outgoing packets to find what your MAC is, then spoof it.

Steve